ALIGARH

MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF LAW
SESSION 2021-2022
SUBJECT – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT WORK

TOPIC- CASE ANALYSIS OF A.K GOPALAN v. STATE OF

MADRAS AIR 1950 SC 27

SUBMITTED TO;
Dr. SAIM FAROOQI
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAW

SUBMITTED BY;
FIDA FATHIMA S
BA LLB (HONS) IVth SEM
SEC; A ROLL NO:21BALLB-34

ENROLLMENT NO.GM9001

DATE OF SUBMISSION; 18/04/2023

 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge all those who

have helped me to put these ideas well above the level of simplicity and into
something concrete. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Professor
Dr. SAIM FAROOQI sir who gave me this wonderful opportunity to do this splendid
assignment on the topic CASE ANALYSIS OF A.K GOPALAN v/s STATE OF
MADRAS AIR 1950 SC 27 which helped me in doing a lot of research through which
I came to know about various new facts. I shouldn’t have successfully completed this
assignment without his guidance, dedication, sincerity, and motivation. Besides, Sir
had left no stones unturned in arranging the classes and giving out the lectures.
Moreover, any attempt at any level can't be satisfactorily completed without the
support and help of my friends and family.

Thank you to everyone who helped me in completing this assignment on time .

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOPIC- CASE ANALYSIS OF A.K GOPALAN v/s STATE OF MADRAS

AIR 1950 SC 27

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.2 INTERNATIONAL LAWS ON LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

1.3 FACTS IN THE ISSUE

1.4 PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

1.5 RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

1.6 PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

1.7 FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

1.8 ARTICLE 13 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

i. The Doctrine of Severability

ii. The Doctrine of Eclipse

1.9 PROTECTION FROM ARREST AND DETENTION

1.10 PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE

1.11 HABEAS CORPUS

1.12 DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE SAIYID FAZL ALI

1.13 OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

1.14 CONCLUSION

1.15 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 3

1.1 INTRODUCTION
A communist leader named Ayillyath Kuttiari Gopalan was held in the Madras jail under the
Preventive Detention Act of 1950. Each time his sentence was overturned. He had been detained
since 1947. This was the first case of its kind, and several articles of India’s constitution were
thoroughly discussed. And while he was still in custody, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
was filed with the Supreme Court by Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that
the Madras government served him with an unjustifiable new order of detention on March 1,
1950, under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. He scrutinized the legitimacy of this specific
demonstration in his request and fought that arrangements of this Act are in repudiation to his
privileges under Articles 13, 19, 21 and Article 22.

Additionally, he questioned whether his detention violated his right to freedom of movement
under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, which is a fundamental component of Article 21—the
right to life and personal liberty. In any case, the court took a smaller view in this judgment and
held that the applicant’s detainment was not compressing his right under Articles 19 and 21
either, and these two rights are not connected or associated. Additionally, the court ruled in the
same judgment that a “law” cannot be declared unconstitutional simply because it lacks natural
justice or due process. Also, this was the first case in which the court said that the phrase
“Procedure established by law” in Article 21 is different from “due process of law,” which
comes from the American Constitution. This was talked about because the right to life and
liberty comes from the American constitution, and the Indian constitution’s drafters used the
phrase “procedure established by law” instead of “due process by law” because it was so vague.
Harilal Kania, the first chief justice of an independent India, handed down this verdict. The
Supreme Court overruled its choice after very nearly thirty years in Maneka Gandhi’s case.1

1.2 INTERNATIONAL LAWS ON LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

Article 21 of the Indian constitution guarantees protection for life and liberty. From the
perspective of international and foreign laws, the terms “life” and “personal liberty” mean
different things. The Indian constitution’s Article 21 is in line with Magna Carta, the Fifth

1
lawcirca. “A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (Interpretation of Key Fundamental Rights Including Article 19 & 21) - Law Circa.”
Lawcirca.com, 21 Nov. 2020, lawcirca.com/a-k-gopalan-v-state-of-madras-interpretation-of-key-fundamental-rights-including-
article-19-21/. Accessed 16 Apr. 2023.
 4

Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the 1946 Constitution of Japan, which grants
it under Article 40(4).2

1.3 FACTS IN THE ISSUE

A communist leader named Ayillyath Kuttiari Gopalan submitted the petition for the writ of
habeas corpus to the Supreme Court by Article 32 of the Constitution. He claimed that his
detention under the preventive detention Act of 1950 violated his right to freedom under Article
19, which violates his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian
constitution. As a result, he requested this writ. The petitioner argued that the term “LAW” as
used in Article 21 encompasses not only the laws that have been passed but also the natural
justice principle and laws that violate an individual’s rights to life and liberty. The petitioner also
argued that the Indian constitution’s use of the phrase “Procedure established by law” and the
American constitution’s use of the phrase “Due process of law” are identical. The only
difference between the two is that the Indian constitution only guarantees the protection of
procedural laws, while the American constitution guarantees the protection of both procedural
and substantive laws. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the Preventive Detention Act
violated his rights under Indian Constitutional Articles 13, 19, 21, and 22.3

1.4 PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

1. As he was restricted in his movement, the detention order violated his rights under Article 19(1)
(Right to freedom).
2. Confinement was encroaching on his right under Article 21 (Right to life and individual
freedom).
3. As arbitrary detention, the order of detention also violated Article 22 of the Constitution’s right
against arrest and detention.
4. According to Article 13, which states that “law inconsistent with the interrogation of
fundamental rights shall be void,” Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act violated his
fundamental right. Accordingly, this Act shall be declared null and void.4

2
United Nations. “Human Rights.” United Nations, 2023, www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights. Accessed on 16
Apr, 2023
3
Supra note 1
4
ibid
 5

1.5 RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

1. According to Article 22 of the Constitution, detention is not arbitrary. The legal procedure has
been followed correctly.
2. Petitioner’s rights under Articles 19, 21, and 22 are not violated by detention.
3. The 1950 Prevention of Detention Act is not arbitrary.
4. The petitioner should not be granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus.5

1.6 PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

This right is revered under part – III of the Indian constitution which is a Major privilege. In
particular under Article 21. This Article peruses as “No individual will be denied of his life or
individual freedom besides as per the method laid out by regulation”. This right is available to
both citizens and non-citizens due to the use of the term “person” in this article. Despite the fact
that Article 19(1)(d) states that this right does not grant the right to reside and settle in India,
Individual freedom can not be removed except if the technique laid out by regulation has been
followed.

Due process of law and procedure established by law was originally included in the Indian
constitution. However, B.N. Rau, who was a member of the constitution’s drafting committee,
met Justice Frankfurter and changed this phrase to the actual phrase that is used in Article 21:
procedure established by law.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 21 in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 6 was
narrow and literal. By stating that the protection of one’s bodily parts is all that is meant by the
term “Personal Liberty,” the state cannot harm an individual’s body. The court also decided that
there is no connection between Article 19 and Article 21. It also ruled that while the American
expression “due process of law” implies that the procedure should be fair and reasonable, the
Indian expression “procedure established by law” only refers to the procedure that is followed. It
implies that anything the methodology, the parliament or governing body indicates, if that
technique isn’t followed really at that time the courts can strike it down. However, this decision
was overturned in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 7 nearly 30 years later. The court took a
more expansive approach to Article 21 and stated that Article 19 and Article 21 are connected
and belong to the same class of rights. It held that personal liberty encompasses all aspects of
liberty and that there is no distinction between the two. It also said that any law that aims to take
5
ibid
6
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Maharashtra [1950] AIR 27 (SC)
7
Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India [1978] AIR 597(SC)
 6

someone’s life or liberty must be fair and reasonable if it is passed by the legislature. As a result,
the court interprets the phraseology of Article 21 of the American Constitution, which states
“due process of law.”8

1.7 FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

The Indian Constitution’s Article 19 (1) (d) guarantees this right. The introduction of this clause
was primarily motivated by the desire to foster a sense of nationality and unity among Indians.
According to the Clause, Indian citizens have unrestricted mobility throughout Indian territory.
However, this right has been restricted by clause 5 of Article 19, which stipulates two
restrictions: first, this right may be restricted for the protection of Scheduled Tribes and second,
for the benefit of the general public.

In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 9 the Supreme Court of India ruled that the
right to locomotion, or the freedom to move wherever and however one pleases, includes the
right to move freely. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushalaya10 is another case that has to do with
freedom of movement. In this case, the Supreme Court said that the right to move freely can be
restricted if it involves prostitutes, and that certain restrictions can be imposed on them in the
interest of public morals and public health.11

1.8 ARTICLE 13 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

This section discusses four fundamental rights principles. By Article 13(1), laws that violate
fundamental rights will be null and void. The doctrine of severability, also known as
separability, and the doctrine of eclipse are the two doctrines it provides.

i. THE DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY

By this doctrine, if a portion of an act is constitutional while another portion is unconstitutional,
the unconstitutional portion ought to be struck out, while the constitutional portion ought to be
preserved. The petitioner challenged the preventive detention act of 1950 in A.K. Gopalan’s
decision. In this demonstration, there is one specific segment, which is, segment 14, as per this
8
Vijaya Narain Shukla. V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India. 13th ed., Eastern Book Company, 1 Jan. 2019.
9
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1963]AIR 1295(SC)
10
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushalaya [1964] AIR 416(SC)
11
ibid
 7

part, an individual who is confined couldn’t unveil his grounds of detainment in the court. Thus,
this part was against principal freedoms. Section 14 of the preventive detention act of 1950 was
deemed invalid in light of the doctrine of severability, but the remaining act remained in effect.

ii. THE DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE

The literal meaning of the word “eclipse” is “to hide.” On account of Bhikaji v. Province of
Madhya Pradesh12, the Berar engine vehicle Act was tested, in this demonstration, there were
sure arrangements which engaged the state government to assume control over the whole engine
transport business. As a result, these provisions became in violation of Article 19 of the Indian
constitution after fundamental rights were upheld. The doctrine of eclipse holds that these parts
of the Motor Vehicle Act no longer apply, and that fundamental rights should take precedence
over them. However, certain amendments were made to Article 19 over time, allowing the
government to monopolize certain businessmen and reactivate those provisions.

Article 13(2) is about post-sacred regulations, the state is disallowed to make regulations which
are conflicting with essential freedoms, assuming they are along these lines, they will be void. In
the case of Gujarat State. Ambica Mills13 The respondent was a business firm. In this labour
welfare fund challenge, the Supreme Court ruled that a business does not receive fundamental
rights and that these sections will continue to apply to non-citizens.

Article 13(3) is about regulation and regulations in force, this article covers by regulations,
notices, mandates, and guidelines under the meaning of the regulation. First, administrative and
executive orders fall under Article 13 in most cases; however, if their nature is to instruct or
provide guidelines, they will not be covered by Article 13(3). Second, Article 13(3) does not
apply to personal laws.

According to Article 13(4), no amendment can be challenged under Article 13 if it was

authorized by Article 368. Despite the fact that it goes against fundamental rights.14

1.9 PROTECTION FROM ARREST AND DETENTION

12
Bhikaji v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1955] AIR 781(SC)
13
State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills [1974] AIR 1300(SC)
14
ibid
 8

In certain circumstances, protection from arrest and detention is provided by Article 22 of the
Indian constitution. Provision 1 and 2 of this article discusses correctional detainment, condition
3 is about the special case, and statement 4 to 7 are about preventive confinement. The technical
term “arrest” means “to restrain,” and when someone is arrested, their freedoms are restricted.
Additionally, that individual must remain in law enforcement custody.

Two sorts of confinement are referenced:

1. PENAL PUNISHMENT: The purpose of this type of detention is to retaliate against an

offender. It occurs in typical laws.

2. DETENTION PREVENTATIVE: By taking someone into custody, this kind of detention

aims to prevent them from committing a crime.

Provisions for punitive detention can be found in some other nations, whereas provisions for
preventive detention are only used in an emergency. India is the only democratic nation where
preventive detention laws are still in effect even on business days.

There are two safeguards provided by Article 22(1): Right to be educated regarding grounds of
confinement, it is a course to keeping position to unveil grounds of detainment to the captured
individual. Right to consult a lawyer In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State
of Bihar15, the supreme court ruled that the accused has the right under the constitution to
demand a lawyer from the state if he cannot afford or hire one.16

Article 22(2) talks about two things: first, the right to be presented before a magistrate. The
person who is in custody must appear before a magistrate within 24 hours, but they are not
allowed to travel or spend the necessary time. Second, no detention for more than 24 hours: If an
arrested person fails to appear before a magistrate within that time frame, they must be released
from custody.

Focus and state the two has abilities to make regulations connected with preventive detainment.

Additionally, safeguards against preventive detention are provided in Article 22(4). To hear
such cases, an advisory board is established.

• Unless approved by the advisory board, no detention should last longer than three months.

• The act’s maximum time limit, for which the person was detained, cannot be extended.

The right to be informed and the Right to representation are two rights outlined in Article 22(5).

15
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, state of Bihar [1979] AIR 1369(SC)
16
Saxena, Anushka. “A.K. Gopalan vs the State of Madras - Case Explained.” WritingLaw, 22 Apr. 2022,
www.writinglaw.com/ak-gopalan-vs-state-of-madras-case-explained/. Accessed 17 Apr. 2023.
 9

According to Article 22(6), the detained person need not be informed of any information that
could compromise the public interest.

Article 22(7) specifies that the parliament will determine the maximum length of detention in
various preventive detention-related laws, as well as the circumstances in which the detention
period may be extended and the Advisory Board’s procedure for conducting the inquiry.17

1.10 PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The English common law term “natural justice” comes from the Latin “jus natural,” which
means “law of nature.” It is not based on any statute or constitution. The Oxford word reference
characterizes an “Only” individual as one who normally “does common decency” and is
arranged to “offering everybody his or possibly some respect”, offering “fair” as an equivalent.
Several aspects of morality, ethics, nationality, law, religion, Justice, and fairness serve as the
foundation for the idea of justice. The concept of justice is typically broken down into two parts:
procedural justice and social justice.

The collection of fundamental human rights to naturally bring about justice for both parties is
known as natural justice. Two principles guide natural justice: • Nemo in propria causa judex,
esse debit: Neither the rule against bias nor the individual’s case can be used as judges.

• We make a change: This standard gives that, there ought to be a fair hearing or a possibility
being heard ought to be conceded to the party, it just means no individual ought to be denounced
unheard.

In addition to the preamble, Articles 14, 21, 22, 32, 226 and 136 of the Indian constitution
guarantee natural justice and provide remedies in the event of unfairness.18

In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 19 the supreme court noted that the
arrested person has the right to inform his or her known ones of his or her arrest and the right to
consult with lawyers privately. These rights are inherent in the Indian constitution and are spelt
out in Articles 21 and 22. What’s more, the court likewise held that, capture and confinement of
an individual might hurt his standing or his confidence, so for that, the cop should have the
option to fulfil that the grounds of capture or detainment are sensible.

17
ibid
18
Mitta, Manoj. “Case Studies: Supreme Court’s Landmark Shifts.” The Times of India, 23 Jan. 2010,
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Case-studies-Supreme-Courts-landmark-shifts/articleshow/5490306.cms. Accessed 28 Apr.
2023.
19
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1994] AIR 1349(SC)
 10

The Supreme Court observed in Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union 20, that the
rule of Audi alteram partem basically enforces equality under Article 14 of the constitution. The
Supreme Court made it clear that this clause applies not only to quasi-judicial bodies but also to
administrative orders that hurt the party in question until the rule of Audi alteram partem is
changed by the relevant Act. In the Maneka Gandhi case 21, which was one of the most important
decisions made by the Indian judiciary, the supreme court held that Article 14 of the constitution
is itself an authority that holds the proposition that the principles of natural justice are very
integral for safeguarding equality.

Article 14 provides an assurance that an order that deprives a person of his civil liberty or civil
right being violated by not giving him an opportunity to be heard, causes severe harm to the
natural justice. This opinion was similar to what was observed in one of the landmark judgments
of the Indian judiciary, the Maneka Gandhi case, in which the supreme court opined that Article
14 of the constitution is itself an authority which has the proposition that the principles of natural
justice are very integral for safeguarding the equality, Article 14 provides an assurance, that an
order which deprives a person of his civil right is being violated by not giving him an
opportunity to be heard.22

1.11 HABEAS CORPUS

This writ is cherished Article 32 of the constitution, this Article is primarily worried about the
two sorts of freedoms and powers. First, an individual can directly petition the Supreme Court if
their fundamental right is being violated. Second, the Supreme Court is enabled to give five sorts
of writs to safeguard the major privileges and in light of this specific component of the Supreme
court, it is otherwise called the “Protector and Guarantor” of the principal freedoms. Dr B.R.
Ambedkar referred to Article 32 as the constitution’s “heart and soul.”

Habeas Corpus is a writ. A writ is anything that is issued under authority. It could be a letter of
law that a court sends to an official under its seal to make him do something. It is a formal order
written down. Before 1950, only the high courts in Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta had the
authority to issue writs; however, Article 226 of the constitution now grants this authority to all
high courts.23

20
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor union [1991] AIR 101 (SC)
21
Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India [1978] AIR 597(SC)
22
Supra note 12
23
LawBhoomi. “Case Brief: A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras.” LawBhoomi, 27 May 2020, lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-a-k-
gopalan-v-state-of-madras/. Accessed 28 Apr. 2023.
 11

If an individual is unlawfully confined, the kept individual or any of his delegates has the option
to request the writ of habeas corpus in the High courts or Supreme court. The court will request
the authority to produce the detained person’s body when this writ is issued. Habeas Corpus
simply refers to possessing a body. From that point, the court will do the assessment of the
confinement and in the event that it is found unlawful, the kept individual will be delivered.
Individuals are protected from being arbitrarily detained by Habeas corpus. It can be used
against a person or an authority figure. In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, 24 the traditional
locus standi doctrine was relaxed, and the supreme court ruled that if a detained person is unable
to petition for a writ of habeas corpus on his or her own, someone else can petition on his or her
behalf. According to the preceding decision, the writ of habeas corpus helped a lot of people,
and the judiciary has used it well to free people from illegal custody and protect their personal
liberties.25

1.12 DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE SAIYID FAZL ALI

Justice Ali stated in his dissent that the fundamental rights protect a common threat to liberty and
freedom rather than being distinct from one another. His view was that central privileges which
are cherished under Indian constitution, doesn’t go about as isolated codes, they should be
perused together, at whatever point there is circumstance of covering. His viewpoint was a
minority one, so it was not taken into account in A.K. Gopalan’s decision, but it was taken into
account when the supreme court accepted his interpretation in the well-known Bank
Nationalization case.

• The American concept of “due process of law” differs from the Indian concept of “procedure
established by law.”

• Because it violates fundamental rights, Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act was deemed
null and void. The Other Act will not be changed.

• According to Article 19 of the Constitution, the detainee’s right to freedom is not violated by
preventive detention.

• The parliament is authorized by Article 22 of the constitution to pass legislation regarding

preventive detention.

24
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, [1983] AIR 378(SC)
25
ibid
 12

• The constitution’s Articles 21 and 19 have no connection to one another and have their own
consequences.26

1.12 OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court of India took an extremely moderate and restricted perspective on individual
freedom ensured under Article 21 of the constitution. The supreme court ruled that due process
of law cannot be used to challenge the preventive detention’s legality because Article 21 is
primarily concerned with the legal procedure rather than its rationality. Furthermore, court
additionally saw that the security under Article 21 is just against the erratic leader activity and
not against the official activity. The court also decided that it could not invalidate the Preventive
Detention Act as a whole because only section 14 violated fundamental rights. Therefore, taking
into account the separability doctrine, the court ruled that section 14 was unconstitutional and
that the remaining Act was valid. The court narrowly interpreted Article 21, concluding that
Article 19 and Article 21 are distinct and have no relationship. According to the petitioner, a
violation of any right under Article 19 does not necessarily result in a violation of Article 21. In
spite of the fact that, Justice fazl ali contradicted this perspective on the larger part, his view was
that the Articles giving principal privileges of the constitution should be perused together.
Different Constitutional Articles were discussed. That’s what court held “Fair treatment of
regulation” is an American idea and it shouldn’t be visible as an equivalent word of “technique
laid out by regulation” which is an Indian idea, they have separate implications and are not quite
the same as one another. Article 21 does not address fairness or reasonability; rather, it is only
concerned with the procedure that must be followed. The supreme court completely rejected
natural justice’s applicability. Consequently, the preventive confinement of the candidate was
held legal. What’s more, the Writ of habeas corpus was not conceded.27

26
Darshini, Deva . “Institute of Legal Education.” Iledu.in, iledu.in/constitution-case-commentary-series-a-k-gopalan-v-state-of-
madras-1950-air-27-1950-scr-88/. Accessed 28 Apr. 2023.
27
ibid
 13

1.13 CONCLUSION
It is possible to draw the conclusion that the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and
personal liberty, which is also recognized internationally on the basis of natural justice
principles. Because it was the first case of its kind shortly after independence, the A.K. Gopalan
judgment is regarded as one of the most significant decisions in the history of the Indian
judiciary. There was an address raised over Article 21 of the constitution. However, the Supreme
court of India took the exceptionally slender understanding of the Article 21 and held that
system laid out by regulation ought to be followed, Court wouldn’t think about that assuming the
apparatus of the method laid out by regulation experiences any inadequacies.
However, in the Maneka Gandhi Case of 1978, the Court reversed this decision almost three
decades later. The court also ruled that the procedure established by law must be just, fair, and
reasonable in its reinterpretation of Article 21 from a broader perspective. The person whose
right to life and liberty has been restricted by preventive detention may require proper legal
representation from the court. In the current scenario, ignorance of any individual’s freedom and
rights may result in serious consequences, such as public protests; consequently, courts must
sometimes be flexible when rendering such judgments. Finally, I outline the implications of this
study on research, strategy making, and other book references.

1.15 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 14

Articles

 LawBhoomi. “Case Brief: A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras.” LawBhoomi, 27 May 2020,

lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-a-k-gopalan-v-state-of-madras/. Accessed 28 Apr. 2023.

 lawcirca. “A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (Interpretation of Key Fundamental Rights Including

Article 19 & 21) - Law Circa.” Lawcirca.com, 21 Nov. 2020, lawcirca.com/a-k-gopalan-v-state-of-

madras-interpretation-of-key-fundamental-rights-including-article-19-21/. Accessed 28 Apr. 2023.

 Mitta, Manoj. “Case Studies: Supreme Court’s Landmark Shifts.” The Times of India, 23 Jan. 2010,

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Case-studies-Supreme-Courts-landmark-shifts/articleshow/

5490306.cms. Accessed 28 Apr. 2023.

 Saxena, Anushka. “A.K. Gopalan vs the State of Madras - Case Explained.” WritingLaw, 22 Apr.

2022, www.writinglaw.com/ak-gopalan-vs-state-of-madras-case-explained/. Accessed 28 Apr. 2023.

 United Nations. “Human Rights.” United Nations, 2023, www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights.

 Darshini, Deva . “Institute of Legal Education.” Iledu.in, iledu.in/constitution-case-commentary-

series-a-k-gopalan-v-state-of-madras-1950-air-27-1950-scr-88/. Accessed 28 Apr. 2023.

Books

 Vijaya Narain Shukla. V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India. 13th ed., Eastern Book Company, 1 Jan.

2019.

Case laws

 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Maharashtra [1950] AIR 27 (SC)

 Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India [1978] AIR 597(SC)

 Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1963]AIR 1295(SC)

 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushalaya [1964] AIR 416(SC)

 Bhikaji v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1955] AIR 781(SC)

 State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills [1974] AIR 1300(SC)

 Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, state of Bihar [1979] AIR 1369(SC)

 Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1994] AIR 1349(SC)

 15

 Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor union [1991] AIR 101 (SC)

 Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, [1983] AIR 378(SC)